Small or Far Away, Father Dougal on Cows
Hi Everybody!
As we have all already noticed, this week is rather rough for downgrade options, but full of players looking like they need to be downgraded. Lovely.
How do we deal with that?
Carefully. We can only choose who to bring in from the players that exist, so when there are no good plans, we are stuck with not good plans.
Oh! Oh! Is now when we invite Mr. Clever in?!?
Mr Clever is not our friend.
But what if we need a fourth for Bridge and he is the only person available?
Bridge? How the heck do you play Bridge little mate?
Slowly, and with the aid of a card holder thingy. Bidding is ok, but the play of the hand is harder when your body is smaller than the cards.
You did ask.
Well, even in such dire circumstances, we need to be careful of inviting Mr Clever around. Better to invite Mr. Calculated Risk.
You mean Mr. Dodgy?
Yeah, Mr. Dodgy, Mr. Calculated Risk; they are just really Mr. Clever wearing a false moustache.
Ok, Enough already. Let’s go with Mr. Creative ok? Who is not quite the same, I think and if you disagree, well, um, then you do.
Anyways, There are not that many ways to be creative since we all have the same players. One way is to downgrade early, which can get you into a horrible cycle of always going early. Another way is to find players who have very low Breakevens but who cost more to use as short term cash generators. The problem with them is they can fail horribly. If they were worth keeping we would already have them, or at least know of them. Someone with a good week or two who we have no reason to think can have a few more good weeks, well, they might not have more good weeks. And if they are already expensive, it is hard to make $100,000 or more on them. Another way is to get mid-pricers that you hope will be worth keeping. Same issue though, are they really that good? Last option is to give up and take a loophole player; DPP for $99k. Hard to justify before they beys, much easier after the byes.
Are you going to suggest anyone?
Maybe in dodgy advice. I have no unique insights on this, and there are other people on the site who can give good advice on those guys.
So, that’s it?
Nah, that was all a lead in to a concept I talk about every year around now. I call it the “Hotel California” effect.
Does anyone else call it that?
Not that I know of….anyways, I need to call it something….
Anyways, once we have fewer trades than players, which is probably everyone, every time we make a trade, a player is locked into our teams. Say I have 21 trades at the start of the round. That means ten player are already locked into my team (31-21=10) If I make three trade this round, there are now 13 players locked into my team. (31-18=13). Looking at my team there are 13 players I will be fine owning at the end of the season. A few more really, assuming no injuries. But that does mean that when I bring someone in, if they are, say Saad El-Hawli, well, can I expec tto make enough money from him he will get traded out? Well…..not really. So, that means even though he is pretty meh, odds are I will be stuck with him. He seems to have a job, probably, so playing is good, DPP is good. I have to bring in someone to downgrade and he is the least awful guy I can find.
You said no advice!
I am not suggesting bringing him in, I’m sharing my possible mistake! I do not advocate bringing in SEH, I just can’t think of anyone better for me. He may never actually get on field for me, I sort of hope not. If I had to put my downgrade option on the field I would pick someone else.
Is there anyone you advocate bringing in as a downgrade option?
Nope. Not one. Like, ick. We are all stuck picking someone dodgy, and we just need to pick someone who is likely to fail in a way we are ok with. For me, I will live with low scores and DPP. Maybe no scores and DPP, but I think he will play a fair amount. Odds are he never scores well enough to be in my best18
You hope
Um, sort of…anyways, the downgrade situation highlights the Hotel California effect, since anyone we bring in is more and more likely to be in our final teams, so this is a good time to start remembering that.
Defenders
Z Reid: Wow, 133! I for sure would not trade him until that is out of his three round average, barring something wacky. Given he is 23, I do wonder how long he can be kept.
Week | Score | Price | Proj. Change | Total Proj |
0 | 119,900 | |||
1 | 45 | 119,900 | ||
2 | 36 | 119,900 | ||
3 | 88 | 119,900 | ||
4 | 163,100 | |||
5 | 104 | 163,100 | ||
6 | 38 | 220,700 | ||
7 | 90 | 264,700 | ||
8 | 102 | 298,400 | ||
9 | 133 | 322,700 | ||
10 | 79.5 | 382,100 | ||
11 | 79.5 | 421,401 | 39,301 | 39,301 |
12 | 79.5 | 440,531 | 19,130 | 58,431 |
13 | 79.5 | 431,060 | -9,471 | 48,960 |
14 | 79.5 | 424,056 | -7,004 | 41,956 |
15 | 79.5 | 418,877 | -5,179 | 36,777 |
16 |
Trainor: That 46 is a big pain. Still worth holding for more cash, and a spike score could really help. Which is true for anyone, but he has done them before.
Week | Score | Price | Proj. Change | Total Proj |
0 | 133,500 | |||
1 | 50 | 133,500 | ||
2 | 24 | 133,500 | ||
3 | 90 | 133,500 | ||
4 | 82 | 156,200 | ||
5 | 80 | 201,400 | ||
6 | 2 | 259,500 | ||
7 | 66 | 264,200 | ||
8 | 82 | 260,800 | ||
9 | 46 | 259,500 | ||
10 | 58.0 | 277,400 | ||
11 | 58.0 | 287,248 | 9,848 | 9,848 |
12 | 58.0 | 283,936 | -3,312 | 6,536 |
13 | 58.0 | 286,784 | 2,848 | 9,384 |
14 | ||||
15 | 58.0 | 288,890 | 2,106 | 11,490 |
16 | 58.0 | 290,448 | 1,557 | 13,048 |
Prior: Nice timing on the spike score. Likely to be worth holding for two more rounds, which get to the R12 byes, so maybe again, and, well, have to see how he does.
Week | Score | Price | Proj. Change | Total Proj |
0 | 169,200 | |||
1 | 50 | 169,200 | ||
2 | 57 | 169,200 | ||
3 | 78 | 169,200 | ||
4 | 163,100 | |||
5 | 54 | 163,100 | ||
6 | 92 | 235,500 | ||
7 | 43 | 273,000 | ||
8 | 57 | 285,500 | ||
9 | 93 | 296,300 | ||
10 | 65.5 | 304,200 | ||
11 | 65.5 | 320,090 | 15,890 | 15,890 |
12 | 65.5 | 335,592 | 15,503 | 31,392 |
13 | 65.5 | 334,917 | -676 | 30,717 |
14 | 65.5 | 334,417 | -500 | 30,217 |
15 | 65.5 | 334,048 | -370 | 29,848 |
16 |
Bice: While his BE this round is high, it will probably come back down even with a meh score next round when that 49 goes out of his three round average. Better to sell this week then next, but if you hold might be a hold to his bye.
Week | Score | Price | Proj. Change | Total Proj |
0 | 113,500 | |||
1 | 52 | 113,500 | ||
2 | 96 | 113,500 | ||
3 | 113,500 | |||
4 | 124 | 113,500 | ||
5 | 89 | 203,400 | ||
6 | 79 | 286,100 | ||
7 | 101 | 340,400 | ||
8 | 49 | 370,800 | ||
9 | 71 | 375,800 | ||
10 | 82.6 | 375,300 | ||
11 | 82.6 | 366,984 | -8,316 | -8,316 |
12 | 82.6 | 375,679 | 8,695 | 379 |
13 | 82.6 | 387,240 | 11,562 | 11,940 |
14 | ||||
15 | 82.6 | 395,790 | 8,550 | 20,490 |
16 | 82.6 | 402,113 | 6,323 | 26,813 |
Connor O’Sullivan: He seems to be trending downwards. Might spike again, but might not. So helpful I know.
Week | Score | Price | Proj. Change | Total Proj |
0 | 148,700 | |||
1 | 48 | 148,700 | ||
2 | 88 | 148,700 | ||
3 | 77 | 148,700 | ||
4 | 103 | 203,900 | ||
5 | 42 | 268,200 | ||
6 | 54 | 295,400 | ||
7 | 95 | 306,400 | ||
8 | 48 | 310,500 | ||
9 | 49 | 317,300 | ||
10 | 67.1 | 319,300 | ||
11 | 67.1 | 308,570 | -10,730 | -10,730 |
12 | 67.1 | 309,072 | 502 | -10,228 |
13 | 67.1 | 317,439 | 8,367 | -1,861 |
14 | 67.1 | 323,626 | 6,187 | 4,326 |
15 | 67.1 | 328,201 | 4,575 | 8,901 |
16 |
Midfielders
M Reid: AThe good news is he has lost so much from his peak he probably will not lose a lot more, so holding him for a spike score is ok. But hopefully he has already been sold.
Week | Score | Price | Proj. Change | Total Proj |
0 | 131,500 | |||
1 | 50 | 131,500 | ||
2 | 75 | 131,500 | ||
3 | 106 | 131,500 | ||
4 | 73 | 199,100 | ||
5 | 58 | 258,500 | ||
6 | 82 | 294,900 | ||
7 | 35 | 312,000 | ||
8 | 50 | 308,200 | ||
9 | 36 | 302,000 | ||
10 | 62.8 | 276,500 | ||
11 | 62.8 | 270,151 | -6,349 | -6,349 |
12 | 62.8 | 271,096 | 945 | -5,404 |
13 | ||||
14 | 62.8 | 283,616 | 12,520 | 7,116 |
15 | 62.8 | 292,875 | 9,259 | 16,375 |
16 | 62.8 | 299,722 | 6,847 | 23,222 |
Lindsay: Seems a good hold while he slowly goes up in price. Not a need to hold, but looks fine to.
Week | Score | Price | Proj. Change | Total Proj |
0 | 158,500 | |||
1 | 86 | 158,500 | ||
2 | 78 | 158,500 | ||
3 | 9 | 158,500 | ||
4 | 193,400 | |||
5 | 48 | 193,400 | ||
6 | 55 | 202,000 | ||
7 | 78 | 198,700 | ||
8 | 56 | 227,000 | ||
9 | 71 | 251,700 | ||
10 | 60.1 | 276,500 | ||
11 | 60.1 | 287,079 | 10,579 | 10,579 |
12 | 60.1 | 296,724 | 9,644 | 20,224 |
13 | 60.1 | 299,055 | 2,331 | 22,555 |
14 | 60.1 | 300,779 | 1,724 | 24,279 |
15 | ||||
16 | 60.1 | 302,053 | 1,275 | 25,553 |
Moraes: Anyone still holding him might as well keep holding and hope.
Week | Score | Price | Proj. Change | Total Proj |
0 | 113,500 | |||
1 | 113,500 | |||
2 | 52 | 113,500 | ||
3 | 94 | 113,500 | ||
4 | 43 | 113,500 | ||
5 | 42 | 166,800 | ||
6 | 30 | 201,800 | ||
7 | 55 | 199,900 | ||
8 | 204,100 | |||
9 | 24 | 204,100 | ||
10 | 48.6 | 198,900 | ||
11 | 48.6 | 203,404 | 4,504 | 4,504 |
12 | ||||
13 | 48.6 | 203,896 | 493 | 4,996 |
14 | 48.6 | 215,108 | 11,211 | 16,208 |
15 | 48.6 | 223,399 | 8,291 | 24,499 |
16 | 48.6 | 229,530 | 6,131 | 30,630 |
Lalor: I feel like selling before he drops more is the way to go. A spike is always possible but how likely is that?
Week | Score | Price | Proj. Change | Total Proj |
0 | 203,500 | |||
1 | 74 | 203,500 | ||
2 | 39 | 203,500 | ||
3 | 45 | 203,500 | ||
4 | 112 | 220,759 | ||
5 | 248,300 | |||
6 | 70 | 248,300 | ||
7 | 46 | 283,800 | ||
8 | 46 | 310,700 | ||
9 | 61 | 301,700 | ||
10 | 61.6 | 290,500 | ||
11 | 61.6 | 289,265 | -1,235 | -1,235 |
12 | 61.6 | 295,250 | 5,985 | 4,750 |
13 | 61.6 | 299,952 | 4,702 | 9,452 |
14 | ||||
15 | 61.6 | 303,428 | 3,477 | 12,928 |
16 | 61.6 | 305,999 | 2,571 | 15,499 |
Long:
Last Week: Started slow and unsteady but has turned into a real Monster! Sweetums! His average is a little misleading price wise, since he seems to have a floor about 85 while playing full time, and will probably average better than that.
This Week: I forgot to say “No Jinkx!” Dangit. Still think he is fine to hold until his bye.
Week | Score | Price | Proj. Change | Total Proj |
0 | 30 | 200,900 | ||
1 | 113 | 200,900 | ||
2 | 57 | 200,900 | ||
3 | 240,000 | |||
4 | 26 | 240,000 | ||
5 | 114 | 263,000 | ||
6 | 96 | 280,600 | ||
7 | 87 | 311,600 | ||
8 | 94 | 361,900 | ||
9 | 65 | 390,100 | ||
10 | 75.8 | 397,500 | ||
11 | 75.8 | 397,595 | 95 | 95 |
12 | 75.8 | 389,621 | -7,974 | -7,879 |
13 | 75.8 | 388,483 | -1,139 | -9,017 |
14 | ||||
15 | 75.8 | 387,641 | -842 | -9,859 |
16 | 75.8 | 387,018 | -623 | -10,482 |
Gross: Owners would be hopeful after his last match. He is still way to early in his growth phase to sell, but holding seems worthwhile. For a while with luck.
Week | Score | Price | Proj. Change | Total Proj |
0 | 113,500 | |||
1 | 113,500 | |||
2 | 113,500 | |||
3 | 113,500 | |||
4 | 51 | 113,500 | ||
5 | 82 | 113,500 | ||
6 | 11 | 113,500 | ||
7 | 147,500 | |||
8 | 147,500 | |||
9 | 46 | 147,500 | ||
10 | 47.5 | 170,400 | ||
11 | 47.5 | 172,143 | 1,743 | 1,743 |
12 | 47.5 | 189,545 | 17,402 | 19,145 |
13 | 47.5 | 203,076 | 13,531 | 32,676 |
14 | 47.5 | 213,082 | 10,006 | 42,682 |
15 | ||||
16 | 47.5 | 220,482 | 7,400 | 50,082 |
Rucks
Flynn: Not a bad a hold since the 53 will drop out after this round. His role and job security are uncertain. If I knew he was keeping his job, I’d hold him and wait for a spike. Not knowing that, well, do ya feel lucky mate?
Week | Score | Price | Proj. Change | Total Proj |
0 | 261,900 | |||
1 | 87 | 261,900 | ||
2 | 261,900 | |||
3 | 261,900 | |||
4 | 261,900 | |||
5 | 261,900 | |||
6 | 141 | 261,900 | ||
7 | 105 | 261,900 | ||
8 | 53 | 341,100 | ||
9 | 80 | 384,900 | ||
10 | 93.2 | 389,500 | ||
11 | 93.2 | 387,893 | -1,607 | -1,607 |
12 | 93.2 | 404,450 | 16,558 | 14,950 |
13 | 93.2 | 422,522 | 18,072 | 33,022 |
14 | 93.2 | 435,886 | 13,364 | 46,386 |
15 | ||||
16 | 93.2 | 445,769 | 9,883 | 56,269 |
Forwards
Hugo Garcia: Another guy without a lot left to lose. Hold until his bye? Hold and hope? Use him? No real wrong answers now.
Week | Score | Price | Proj. Change | Total Proj |
0 | 245,800 | |||
1 | 54 | 245,800 | ||
2 | 25 | 245,800 | ||
3 | 99 | 245,800 | ||
4 | 54 | 260,000 | ||
5 | 84 | 269,800 | ||
6 | 59 | 303,300 | ||
7 | 21 | 311,100 | ||
8 | 71 | 302,600 | ||
9 | 40 | 290,800 | ||
10 | 56.3 | 273,200 | ||
11 | 56.3 | 275,902 | 2,702 | 2,702 |
12 | 56.3 | 271,425 | -4,477 | -1,775 |
13 | ||||
14 | 56.3 | 275,325 | 3,900 | 2,125 |
15 | 56.3 | 278,209 | 2,884 | 5,009 |
16 | 56.3 | 280,341 | 2,133 | 7,141 |
Levi Ashcroft: Still nice and fieldable. His fate may depend on his score this week.
Week | Score | Price | Proj. Change | Total Proj |
0 | 185,500 | |||
1 | 84 | 185,500 | ||
2 | 72 | 185,500 | ||
3 | 36 | 185,500 | ||
4 | 87 | 221,700 | ||
5 | 90 | 249,100 | ||
6 | 89 | 277,400 | ||
7 | 68 | 322,500 | ||
8 | 99 | 347,800 | ||
9 | 77 | 370,800 | ||
10 | 78.0 | 381,800 | ||
11 | 78.0 | 394,471 | 12,671 | 12,671 |
12 | 78.0 | 394,571 | 100 | 12,771 |
13 | 78.0 | 395,086 | 515 | 13,286 |
14 | 78.0 | 395,467 | 381 | 13,667 |
15 | 78.0 | 395,748 | 282 | 13,948 |
16 |
Davidson: Well….if he tears up the Bombers, that would help him make cash. Not losing it too fast….
Week | Score | Price | Proj. Change | Total Proj |
0 | 113,500 | |||
1 | 39 | 113,500 | ||
2 | 72 | 113,500 | ||
3 | 129 | 113,500 | ||
4 | 54 | 189,800 | ||
5 | 61 | 252,100 | ||
6 | 82 | 293,200 | ||
7 | 51 | 303,700 | ||
8 | 46 | 310,400 | ||
9 | 55 | 309,000 | ||
10 | 65.4 | 295,400 | ||
11 | 65.4 | 291,926 | -3,474 | -3,474 |
12 | ||||
13 | 65.4 | 297,941 | 6,015 | 2,541 |
14 | 65.4 | 307,000 | 9,059 | 11,600 |
15 | 65.4 | 313,699 | 6,699 | 18,299 |
16 | 65.4 | 318,653 | 4,954 | 23,253 |
Kako: Has a job, has DPP, Has Job Has DPP, still gonna make money, hold on, hold on….Sure is growing slowly and steadily…. Warm body in the byes, warm body in the byes…..
Week | Score | Price | Proj. Change | Total Proj |
0 | 149,500 | |||
1 | 62 | 149,500 | ||
2 | 34 | 149,500 | ||
3 | 62 | 149,500 | ||
4 | 163,100 | |||
5 | 38 | 163,100 | ||
6 | 55 | 191,700 | ||
7 | 49 | 210,200 | ||
8 | 60 | 218,300 | ||
9 | 30 | 234,200 | ||
10 | 48.8 | 234,500 | 300 | 300 |
11 | 48.8 | 234,665 | 165 | 465 |
12 | 48.8 | 229,820 | -4,845 | -4,380 |
13 | 48.8 | 234,515 | 4,695 | 315 |
14 | 48.8 | 237,987 | 3,472 | 3,787 |
15 | 48.8 | 240,554 | 2,567 | 6,354 |
16 |
Sam PP: Looks like prime trade out time.
Week | Score | Price | Proj. Change | Total Proj |
0 | 180,500 | |||
1 | 18 | 180,500 | ||
2 | 83 | 180,500 | ||
3 | 48 | 180,500 | ||
4 | 74 | 199,000 | ||
5 | 101 | 236,800 | ||
6 | 106 | 272,700 | ||
7 | 98 | 325,700 | ||
8 | 66 | 375,800 | ||
9 | 53 | 397,700 | ||
10 | 71.9 | 389,700 | ||
11 | 71.9 | 372,452 | -17,248 | -17,248 |
12 | ||||
13 | 71.9 | 362,297 | -10,155 | -27,403 |
14 | 71.9 | 363,126 | 829 | -26,574 |
15 | 71.9 | 363,739 | 613 | -25,961 |
16 | 71.9 | 364,192 | 453 | -25,508 |
Stone: Did not play.
Curtain: That 22 will really hurt him for a few more weeks. Hard to see holding. Again looking at going to Moo-Ron Mountain.
Week | Score | Price | Proj. Change | Total Proj |
0 | 158,600 | |||
1 | 26 | 158,600 | ||
2 | 82 | 158,600 | ||
3 | 90 | 158,600 | ||
4 | 65 | 204,500 | ||
5 | 42 | 254,900 | ||
6 | 48 | 274,600 | ||
7 | 41 | 271,400 | ||
8 | 73 | 258,700 | ||
9 | 22 | 263,200 | ||
10 | 54.3 | 254,600 | ||
11 | 54.3 | 254,201 | -399 | -399 |
12 | 54.3 | 245,665 | -8,536 | -8,935 |
13 | 54.3 | 253,627 | 7,962 | -973 |
14 | 54.3 | 259,514 | 5,888 | 4,914 |
15 | ||||
16 | 54.3 | 263,868 | 4,354 | 9,268 |
Dodgy Advice: EveryoneI can think of is sooooo dodgy. Bergman, Jiath, Phillipou, Coleman. All just risky, risky, risky. I feel a little bad even suggesting them.
Do not overpay for anyone. So many good players with falling or low prices.
Remember the Cow Talk guarantee: “All predictions wrong or triple your money back!” (Offer not valid if money is actually involved.)
I am time zonally challenged. When Cow Talk goes live, I’m probably asleep, so replies from me may take a while.
Thanks for reading!
Thanks Father Dougal, you’ve moo-tivated me to hold on to byes for Reid / Byce / Ashcroft / Daniel and potentially Prior. I think Powell-Pepper has definitely got to mooove on this week — he’s just not pulling his weight in the herd anymore.
My question is whether these udderly strong rookies will out-pasture the premium and fresh rookie calves being brought in by other coaches, or will I find myself milking regrets as I mooove down the rankings?
Love your work
Fantastic read – always look forward to it
The opposite of making money is losing money.
Instead of trading in a rookie to make cash, we can trade out a non-rookie who is about to lose cash.
Has the same sort of effect on the team value, doesn’t it?
In the short term sort of, but bringing in someone who can make $100k or more is different than avoiding a $25k loss. I do agree that sometime you need to sell before a drop, if you are sure you plan to sell. I kept Bergman when he got hurt and since I am keeping his price changes have not mattered. Same with Daniel now. If you plan to sell, now makes sense, If you plan to keep then keep and maybe look again after the byes.
You are not wrong, but there is more to it long term. Good point to rasise though, thanks.
you are correct that a rookie has more ability to make $100k quickly than a premium has to lose $100k.
i had a shocker run home last year, went from top 1k at byes to 10k, and i put it all down to team value. i had a team worth $12.8m trying to complete with teams worth $14m.
as a result this year only started 1 player over $600k – gawn.
went with value such as dawson, Rozee, Cerra, brayshaw, holmes, short, rankine, flynn thinking they won’t lose cash.
Have a team value around $13.1m now and ranked inside top 1k. still need $1m to be competative me thinks
love your work